Seeking Balance On Euthanasia

February 04, 1999|By RABBI DAVID BOOTH Columnist

Four years ago, Hugh Finn was in a horrible car accident that left him unable to communicate, control his movements or even eat on his own. The repercussions of that accident continue to reverberate in the Virginia General Assembly because his wife, Michele, decided to have his feeding tube removed last October.

Her ultimate success, despite the opposition of Gov. Jim Gilmore, inspired Del. Robert Marshall, R-Prince William, to propose legislation that would prevent feeding tubes from being removed in the future in some cases.

Mr. Finn's persistent vegetative state must have been incredibly painful for his loved ones. Michele Finn fought for and won the right to bring her husband's and her own suffering to an end.

Euthanasia cases like this one bring two of our most treasured values into direct conflict. On the one hand, we value freedom and choice. It ought to be my decision when my life ends, not Gilmore's or Marshall's. At a minimum, I would rather have my trusted family or friends decide the moment of my death than leave such a decision to the state of Virginia.

At the same time, our society has always valued human life. It is for this reason that suicide is illegal in practically every state in the country. (Oregon's Death with Dignity Act allows options for a mentally competent adult suffering from a terminal illness and likely to die within six months. Those Oregonians may get life-ending drugs after consulting two doctors and waiting 15 days.)

Sometimes depression and circumstances make someone's life appear not worth living. Left to his own devices, he might choose to end that life because it lacks quality.

Virginia takes away that decision. Not only is the right to suicide legally removed, but Virginia uses all the persuasive means at her disposal to convince people never to make this final choice - no matter how painful or meaningless their lives may seem. We leave the decision of when our lives should end to a Greater Power.

Virginia needs legislation to guide us between these two values, but Marshall's proposal is far too restrictive.

I oppose euthanasia along the lines of what Dr. Jack Kevorkian of Detroit advocates because he actively takes a life. Kevorkian either injects or provides patients with lethal poisons. That's something our society should not condone from anyone, and least of all from medical professionals.

The danger of an absolute right to die is that people will have a suicide switch as an earlier option than is appropriate. The further danger is that devoted parents and grandparents may begin to see pulling the suicide switch as an obligation to save their family's resources.

Yet, sometimes medical technology does more than extend our lives. It extends the moment of our death, in Mr. Finn's case for 3 1/2 years. There must be some point where our right to refuse further medical care trumps the societal interest in preserving human life.

Death is not inherently bad. It can be tragic or premature, but it can also be a relief and even a blessing.

When the moment of death is upon us, we need the right to refuse the care that serves only to drag out the moment.

I hope lawmakers will act in a way that values the sacredness of human life by refusing patients the right to actively have their lives ended. At the same time, the state should permit patients and their families the right to refuse care when medical treatment serves only to extend death.

Otherwise we allow the fear of death to become its own form of idolatry.

Booth is spiritual leader at Rodef Shalom Temple in Hampton. He can be reached by e-mail at rabbirst@erols.com.